Sachin Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60802 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-647 Year-2021 Thana- KATIHAR NAGAR District- Katihar ====================================================== Sachin Kumar Singh S/O Chandrashekhar Singh R/O Kataria, P.S.- Korha, Distt- Katihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Singh Ms. Neha Rani For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ramchandra Sahni ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 21-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Katihar(S) P.S. Case No. 647 of 2021 instituted for the offence under Sections 307, 302, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Allegation against the petitioner along with other coaccused is that they shot fired upon the informant's husband, namely, Dhanraj Yadav due to which he shot dead. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this present case. It is further submitted that the informant is not the eye witness of the alleged occurrence. Petitioner is languishing in custody

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60802 of 2022(5) dt.21-04-2023 2/2 since 24.11.2021.

Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that this petitioner along with other co-accused persons shot fired upon the informant's husband due to which he shot dead and during investigation, witnesses also supported the prosecution case and postmortem reports also shows that several injuries sustained on the body of the deceased by the fire arm and doctor opined the cause of death is due to gun shot injury.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

The trial court is directed to conclude the trial within the stipulated period as asserted in the status report failing which, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) shubham/- U T